Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

And yet it worked 

 

Did it? 57 Senators voted to convict - a historic, unprecedented number. Including seven from his own party - again, not only unprecedented, but unheard of. 

 

No president has ever been convicted by the Senate, who entirely vote on party lines. 

 

That's not what happened here. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not unconstitutional, and there is a precedent. These kinds of blatant lies have no place on this board.    

You're not that misinformed. You're just gaslighting.  It's what you do.  You know full well that an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  The requirements for conviction are not eve

to be fair...trumps lawyers could have sang baby shark for 3 hours and you and the rest of the trumpers would have said the same thing.  

Posted Images

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Said only out of CMA mode. 

The stack of evidence using his other words speak differently. The go peacefully comment was an obvious outlier.

 

It's an embarrassing defense of a despicable man, and frankly disgusting in light of the murder of a Capitol Police Officer by the very crowd attending trump's rally.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

Says "you must fight" in a rhetorical sense

AntiTrumpers "OBVIOUS INCITMENT"

Says "Go Peacefully" in a literal sense, AntiTrumpers

AntiTrumpers "JUST COVERING HIS TRACKS"

 

Lol, I have enjoyed the mostly peaceful discussion.  But none of it changes anything.  Shoddy trial, assumption based evidence and an expected acquittal.  This is why I consider it all Political Theater.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Redux said:

Maybe they should have done a better job

 

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

the actual case was weak

 

6 minutes ago, Redux said:

They probably should've had a better case

 

You keep saying things like this, but do you actually think that even if we had video of Trump saying, "I am hereby inciting you to riot at the capitol" and a page from Trump's daily planner sayying "incite riot" with a chekmark next to it, that a majority of GOP senators would vote to convict?

 

The last 4 years were an exercise in the GOP and the right-wing media imploring people to ignore the evidence that they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears to defend Trump and smack down the liberals at any cost. The GOP have been putting Trump over country for years. The Dems have dropped the ball on many things over the years, but the failure to get a conviction here was purely a function of Republican complicity, not the Dems prosecution efforts.

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
23 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's an embarrassing defense of a despicable man, and frankly disgusting in light of the murder of a Capitol Police Officer by the very crowd attending trump's rally.

And the bold often gets over looked unfortunately in this discussion.  If this was a MOB (crime family kind of mob, not the riot mob) situation, Trump could be accused of being an accessory to murder.  So, I guess Trump is right - He could shot someone in Times Square and his supporters would stand with him. In this case, he shot via his words and through his mobster cohorts and  the weapons  of clubs, American flag etc.  were used to murder a policeman.   Remove Trump from his political status and let him stand as a private citizen, then think how a real court would see this?  But him in Times Square and he speaks those words to his followers and they riot and someone gets killed.  Don't you think he'd get charged? 

 

I hope this ends up in a real court where Trump has to fight criminal charges without the support of his GOP lackeys

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

15 minutes ago, Redux said:

Shoddy trial, assumption based evidence

 

This is an opinion unsupported by the facts. And it's disgusting that it keeps getting repeated so blithely considering the damage done on January 6th. 

 

It's as if some people simply don't care that a Police Officer was murdered by trump's followers, immediately following his "you must stop the steal" speech.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
45 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

 

 

You keep saying things like this, but do you actually think that even if we had video of Trump saying, "I am hereby inciting you to riot at the capitol" and a page from Trump's daily planner sayying "incite riot" with a chekmark next to it, that a majority of GOP senators would vote to convict?

 

The last 4 years were an exercise in the GOP and the right-wing media imploring people to ignore the evidence that they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears to defend Trump and smack down the liberals at any cost. The GOP have been putting Trump over country for years. The Dems have dropped the ball on many things over the years, but the failure to get a conviction here was purely a function of Republican complicity, not the Dems prosecution efforts.

 

If we had that I'd never let my MAGA friends hear the end of it because it would be undeniable at that point.  If we had that, we could skip the charade of Impeaching an out of office President and we could move right into a real trial.  But we don't have that.  We have a typical Trump speech where he has delusions of grandeur and metaphors.  Thus, not guilty.

Link to post
33 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is an opinion unsupported by the facts. And it's disgusting that it keeps getting repeated so blithely considering the damage done on January 6th. 

 

It's as if some people simply don't care that a Police Officer was murdered by trump's followers, immediately following his "you must stop the steal" speech.

 

Allegedly 

Link to post
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

It's an embarrassing defense of a despicable man, and frankly disgusting in light of the murder of a Capitol Police Officer by the very crowd attending trump's rally.

What murder? 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Redux said:

Says "you must fight" in a rhetorical sense

AntiTrumpers "OBVIOUS INCITMENT"

Says "Go Peacefully" in a literal sense, AntiTrumpers

AntiTrumpers "JUST COVERING HIS TRACKS"

 

Lol, I have enjoyed the mostly peaceful discussion.  But none of it changes anything.  Shoddy trial, assumption based evidence and an expected acquittal.  This is why I consider it all Political Theater.

So in your mind there is no way to punish a political leader for their words, actions, and inactions over the course of their term which ultimately caused their base to boil over with rage; and physically murder someone, beat others, and endanger the very fabric of our government at a rally they setup?

  • Plus1 4
Link to post

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So in your mind there is no way to punish a political leader for their words, actions, and inactions over the course of their term which ultimately caused their base to boil over with rage; and physically murder someone, beat others, and endanger the very fabric of our government at a rally they setup?

Not much you can do to help the willfully blind to see.  :dunno

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
7 hours ago, ZRod said:

I'm pretty sure you know the answer, and I'm pretty sure you also know that even in a real criminal trial the requested criminal act need not be committed by the person who is being coerced or solicited. Only that the criminal act was requested.

 

That's why you have attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted extortion, etc.

Okay so you meant "attempted to coerce" instead of coerced.

What pressure did Trump apply to coerce beyond asking someone to do his job?

 

6 hours ago, ZRod said:

When does a poor choice of words no longer become defensible? For 5 or 6 years that's been the go to excuse. At this point I don't think it's a reflection on choices, but the person's character, morales, and ethics.

 

5 hours ago, ZRod said:

Ok. I would love to have this conversation in 4 years.

 

Remind me again when Biden tells people to fight like hell, rough them up, don't go easy, grab em by the pu&&y, that a civil protestor is a son of a b!^@h, to find a way to inject sunlight or ingest disinfectant, calls people offensive names like; sleepy Joe, Lying Chuck, Dumb Nancy, Pocahontas, Mr. Magoo, etc, etc. Or how about when he tells American citizens to go back to their own country. Or asks for State officials to commit election fraud, or a foreign government to dig up dirt to influence an election, or says he believes Valdamir Putin over our of intelligence community, or stand in front of the 117 stars for fallen CIA agents and brag about crowd size. Or continuously spread false conspiracy theories, and on and on and on...

This is low hanging fruit

because the Ds are more violent and more proud of it. 

 

7ic5QFH.jpg

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
11 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So in your mind there is no way to punish a political leader for their words, actions, and inactions over the course of their term which ultimately caused their base to boil over with rage; and physically murder someone, beat others, and endanger the very fabric of our government at a rally they setup?

In a democracy the people vote them out of power.  You do not use the laws as pretext to go after your political opponents.  That's why we revolted from The English Crown which did it all the time. 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So in your mind there is no way to punish a political leader for their words, actions, and inactions over the course of their term which ultimately caused their base to boil over with rage; and physically murder someone, beat others, and endanger the very fabric of our government at a rally they setup?

 

Pretty wild assumption

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Okay so you meant "attempted to coerce" instead of coerced.

What pressure did Trump apply to coerce beyond asking someone to do his job?

 

 

This is low hanging fruit

because the Ds are more violent and more proud of it. 

 

7ic5QFH.jpg

 

 

Yes, photoshopping them into imagery of burning buildings is quite convincing.

 

The more amusing part is that not a single one of those quotes supports rioting or violence.

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...